You're right. That was Pats726. I misread the post, and I apologize. The idea is still applicable, and you were responding to my response to Pats726, but the specific example was not yours. Again, my apologies.
I'm having a hard time believing that you're incapable of grasping the difference between changing the radio dial and picketing the radio station. One is a sensible exercise of your discretion not to patronize something you don't agree with. The other is an attempt to silence someone you don't agree with.
It's not an attempt to silence at all. It's an attempt to show advertisers that you will not buy their crap if they support racists. It's as much an American right as anything. Has nothing to do with Constitutional rights. There is no constitutional rights to use the airwaves to make slurs against others. That's a privilege licensed by the American people. That's why people get into hot water with the FCC. Furthermore, racist statements are protected even though they have the effect of silencing people as well. For instance, if you live in an area with Klan activity, then any racist statements by the Klan can be perceived as silencing (ie it would be mighty brave of you to bring on any potential violence, so what do you do? You shut up). And yet the Klan's rights to effectively silence people are protected by the ACLU. Now, imagine the Klan had a radio station in that same area. If you tried to boycott the sponsors, you'd likely fail. But if they had a show in LA, the boycott would probably work. Proof positive that this isn't an issue of free speech. It's pure commerce.
Newsflash: the ACLU is a socialist, anti-Christian organization with its own agenda that goes above and beyond defending perceived assaults on the First Amendment. It picks and chooses who it will defend based upon its broad political goals rather than based upon the simple notion of protection of the first amendment. That's within the organization's rights, but it pretty much kills your "KKK" argument.
